Obama: The Worst President Ever?

The title is a little hard hitting, but what of the idea that Mr. Obama is the worst president in our countries history?   I generally give that title to Mr. Carter for his numerous bunglings of the economy, Iranian hostage situation, etc.  Maybe Nixon could be on that list for his crookedness while in office.  Questions to ponder, for sure.

Below is an excerpt from an article written R. Emmett Tyrrell, a columnist for The Washington Times, that explores that very subject.

It is becoming apparent for all to see that a man who made his name as a community organizer does not have the skills to be president of these United States. Maybe he could develop the requisite skills as a governor. Possibly he could develop such skills were he to sit in the Senate for a couple of terms. Yet there are delicate sensitivities, the ability to listen, to stick by your guns, occasionally to remain reticent. These are the fundamentals of a leader, and President Obama has demonstrated that he lacks all of them, most notably reticence. I think it is clear even to official Washington that Mr. Obama is the worst president of modern times. President Jimmy Carter is redeemed.

Indeed, Jimmy Carter is redeemed.  Mr. Tyrrell goes on to make the case that Mr. Obama seems to insert himself into silly controversies based not on being prudent (i.e. Professor Henry Gates, ala “The Beer Summit”), but rather impulsive in nature.

There is a solid reason that we usually seek individuals who have proven themselves in an executive role first.  In a governmental position, this usually means a gubernatorial role (Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon…)  At the least, the person needs to have some kind of experience managing an organization and a large group of people.  Obama does not have that quality and we are getting what we deserve by electing such an individual.  Heck, he barely had any experience in the Senate (hardly a training ground for executives.)

Those on the other side are quick to point out that he has helped pass comprehensive health care legislation, ended the war in Iraq and has attempted to “fix” the errors of the Bush Administration.  Right.  While I was not an enthusiastic fan of President Bush, I think he had a much better grasp on how to govern than Mr. Obama.  This has nothing to do with his politics, but rather the way he attempts to manage people.

Let’s bring this down to a level all of us could understand.  Not all corporations are run equally.  Some are good and some are bad, management wise.  Well run companies and corporations have a chain of command where the executive hires individuals to serve under them (i.e. Vice Presidents) and then there are people under those individuals that do specific jobs and so on and so forth.  This is a top down structure that allows the employees to do their jobs and report to a specific boss.  The CEO or President answers to a board that is entrusted to make sure things don’t go awry.

Then there are the micromanagement firms.  These firms usually include a dynamic individual that feels compelled to insert themselves into all areas of the operation.  This may sound like a great way to gain the trust of the employees, but in reality, it hinders and stifles productivity and creative behaviors.  People start to wonder who is the boss.  It is terribly inefficient.  Eventually this type of corporation will wither due to distrust of the employees and paranoia of the chief executive.  Eventually the corporation crumbles under the ineffective management.  The smart boards will fire the chief executive and try to repair the damage caused before the company ceases to exist.

I have had experience with both types of organizations (I’ve actually seen both types happen within the same company.)  The first is more appropriate for a large organization.  Hire the best people and let them do their job.  Ronald Reagan used to say about the Soviets, “Trust but verify.”  A great mantra to live by in any corporate or governmental environment.

Mr. Obama has a problem with his management skills.  He’s a very good and charismatic speaker, but that quality does not lead to a good leader.

Mr. Tyrrell ended his article with these lines:

Increasingly, it is clear that the Democrats brought down on the country a community organizer as president. Maybe in the future they will consider experience a qualification for the presidency. Possibly, the age of charisma is behind us. Possibly, Mr. Obama even lacks that dubious quality.

Amen.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Isn’t All Crime a Hate Crime?

obamasigningToday, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  This bill was buried in the Defense Appropriations bill. 

A logical American, or any breathing human being for that matter, would wonder why this was not pushed forward on its own merits.  Why was this buried in a $680 billion defense appropriations bill?   I’ll tell you why, it would have never passed otherwise.

From the USA Today:  

The new law basically expands existing hate-crime protections to outlaw attacks based on sexual orientation or gender, in addition to race, color, religion or national origin. 

In a later ceremony devoted to the new law, Obama told supporters, “No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hand of the person they love.” He cited statistics that in these past 10 years, there have been more than 12,000 hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

“We will never know how many incidents were never reported at all,” Obama said.

Opponents called the hate-crimes bill unnecessary, noting that Shepard’s and Byrd’s attackers were convicted in state criminal courts. Some critics objected to the inclusion of hate-crimes legislation in a defense budget bill.

“The president has used his position as commander-in-chief to advance a radical social agenda, when he should have used it to advance legislation that would unequivocally support our troops,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the House Republican Conference. 

Pence also argued that the law could be used to curb free speech rights, such as with religions that consider homosexuality a sin.    

According to an AP story, “The hate crimes measure came as part of legislation (defense appropriation bill) that Obama also touted for other reasons: a crackdown on careless military spending.”   How about just cutting down on that spending the normal way and not including unnecessary legislation unrelated to a bill meant to fund the military efforts?  I realize this is the way things are done in Washington, but isn’t that part of the problem?

The last time I checked hate was hate no matter what the person looks like or his sexual orientation.  A crime is a crime and tagging it with some arbitrary title is not only unnecessary but subject to interpretation by the legal system.  In other words, “I’m going to read your mind and determine if you are a racist homophobic loser.”  Ridiculous.

Scenarios: What if a Muslim kills a Christian because he is not Muslim?  What if a black man kills a white man just for being white?  What if a homosexual kills a heterosexual for not being gay?  Far fetched and idiotic maybe, but have we thought of these scenarios or just the obvious ones?  If a hate crime can be attached to the cases expressed in the various news stories why not my examples? 

No good can come from this and is a travesty to the justice system. 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Anita Dunn Punks the Press

I believe Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, is an incredibly smart woman.  Either that or she has very smart people around her.

It was no secret that the Obama campaign utilized technology better than any other Presidential candidate (or any candidate for that matter) ever has in modern history.  The video below describes their strategy of how they really shaped the way the media reported things about Obama during the 2008 campaign. 

From WorldNetDaily:

President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference .

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.

“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.

Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”

 

What a brilliant strategy.  If the present day press can be led along on a string so easily, why is the other side not doing this?  Is it really that easy?

Really, this is not a new strategy.  In sales you always want to be driving the car moving your prospect from point A to point B.  You may veer off the path during the trip but you really want to be the one in charge.  The same goes here: the democrats are much much better at framing the argument and sticking to their guns no matter what comes along.  If you think back during the 2008 campaign it was the McCain camp that was generally reactive to situations and the Obama campaign was proactive.  This video lays that out perfectly.

Now I’m not an operative for the GOP, and don’t want to be one, but if the conservative side is going to combat this they are going to have to wake up and embrace technology.  The bloggers have already done this, but the majority of the American public do not read blogs.  The Republicans are much more likely to have varied opinions about the direction of the country (within the party) and a strategy like Ms. Dunn’s would probably not work the same way, but you have to start somewhere. 

Attn: Michael Steele – take notes from Anita Dunn and the Obama campaign.  This is the only way you will have to take back any seats next year. 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Do Words Matter Mr. Obama?

 One of our great local radio hosts, Jamie Allman, from 97.1 FM Talk, put up a well done video that I just had to share.

It’s good to see we haven’t had the massive loony protests calling President Obama war monger or worse.  For the most part it has been pretty peaceful and pointed.  We don’t have to like Mr. Obama and his direction he is taking the country, but a little civil discourse is healthy for the country. 

Like Dalton says, I want you to be nice until it’s time to not be nice.  I think we’re heading towards the not nice phase. 

You can catch Allman in the Morning online here.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Jack Webb Schools Obama on Health Care

This is just for fun. 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Dick Cheney For President

I wish all politicians had the outlook that Dick Cheney has on most issues. 

Chris Wallace interviewing Cheney:

One thing you can’t acuse Cheney of is of not being upfront on his opinions and experiences.  We need people not afraid of speaking their mind, but I doubt we will ever get anyone like that until they are out of office.

Dick Cheney for President 2012.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Do You Want A Treat From Barak Obama?

Not much political here, I just thought this was funny.  I wonder how they got the dog to do that.